Posted on 05/06/2003 12:53:57 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
You must get over your obsession with the idea that secession was unconstitutional and illegal, and that the Peoples of the Southern States acted improperly or overreached their sovereignty when they assembled in conventions and withdrew from the Union. They had every right and power to do so, rights and powers which they received intact and undishonored from the ancestors who took them from King George himself -- which cession, if you are diligent and search out the text of the Treaty of Paris of 1783 online, you can see for yourself was granted by the King of England to each and every State of the Union. Go look at it, in black letters on white paper.
Secession was revolution, and revolution was the Confederates' right -- which they made in fact, not just in rhetoric about "free people" and "the spirit of '76". More honor to them, and less to their conqueror, that they acted like Americans.
no they aren't plowing cotton, but the principle is STILL the same-no rails & track needed, just BIG LUGGED wheels & LOTS of torque.
FRee dixie,sw
I gently suggest that I'm not the one who needs to worry about how they look. Your scenario is getting more preposterous with every post.
* * *
XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
* * *
And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.
/////
U.S. CONSTITUTION
Article VII - Ratification
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
/////
The Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union specified at Article 13 that they could only be altered if confirmed by the LEGISLATURES of EVERY state. The drafters of the Constitution wrote that ratification by 9 of the existing 13 states would be sufficient to scrap the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. How could this be? Why was it done?
Rhode Island refused to participate in the Convention, apparently not wanting change. Connecticut and Massachusetts wanted to abolish Rhode Island divide its territory among them.
Clearly, those who met to draft the Constitution went beyond their delegated power to meet "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union."
They created an entirely new government and defied part of Article 13 of the existing Articles of Confederation in order to nullify the requirement of unanimity.
QUESTION: If the drafters of the Constitution could reduce the ratification requirement, contained in the Articles of Confederation, from unanimity to 9 of 13, why could the Southern states not replace the Constitution with another document and write their own ratification requirement?
QUESTION: Suppose 9 had ratified the Constitution and 4 had not. What would have been the result?
FRee dixie,sw
If that is my intent then it doesn't seem to be working, does it?
I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
-------
The 13 original states bound themselves perpetually to the United States of America in 1781, well before the present Constitution existed.
But did they not bind themselves in a league of friendship, with each state retaining its sovereignty, freedom and independence?
The Articles of Confederation provide that any change thereto must be approved by the legislatures of all thirteen states. The Constitution, in contravention of the existing and effective perpetual union, declared itself to be effective upon the ratification by conventions of any nine states. This seems to establish that when the ninth state convention ratified, an entirely new nation was born consisting of those nine states.
(George Washington was the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797 under the Constitution. This implies the current nation of the United States of America began in 1789. We do not seem to count the 10 men who served as President of the United States in Congress Assembled from March 1, 1781 to March 4, 1789.)
The four states that had not ratified the Constitution would presumably still exist as the United States of America under the existing Articles of Confederation.
What had the first nine states done other than secede from the perpetual union declared by the Articles of Confederation? As the Articles of Confederation prohibited the change as enacted (less than unanimously), had Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations refused to ratify, would they have had the legal right to attack the states that had left the union?
What distinguishes this legally from the situation of the seceding southern states?
The main distinguishing factor seems to be the fact that the northern states possessed the power to force the seceding states to remain in, or rejoin, the union.
30 Apr 1789 - George Washington inaugurated
21 Nov 1789 - North Carolina ratified
29 May 1790 - Rhode Island ratified
After 30 Apr 1789, 11 states had formed a new nation. Clearly, North Carolina and Rhode Island could not have been states under the Constitution.
The Articles of Confederation establish that they could not be changed except upon approval of the legislatures of all 13 states. Clearly, that had not happened.
While the Constitution asserts that it is effective upon the ratification of 9 states, it does not assert that the Articles of Confederation are abolished by that action.
It would seem that after the new nation of the Constitution was born with the inauguration of George Washington, there are two possibilities:
1. North Carolina and Rhode Island continued as what was left of the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation, and had the legal right to do so in perpetuity. (However, they were unlikely to thrive as a viable nation.)
2. The Articles of Confederation ceased to have any lawful effect, in which case, North Carolina and Rhode Island must have reverted to their status prior to the Articles of Confederation. Prior to the Articles, each of the colonies was a separate sovereign state per the Paris Peace Treaty of September 3, 1783.
It does not quite seem fair or persuasive to say NC and RI did not coin money or conduct foreign relations and remained as they had under the Articles. Were they not removed as beneficiaries of any revenue collected by the government of the United States? Did the new nation not simply take over all the embassies and consulates belonging to the Confederated union? Eleven of the states that had joined them in perpetual union had left NC and RI high and dry. The new nation was performing all the functions of which you speak, in the name of the United States of America. Presumably it had taken with it all possible assets of the old national government. In 1861, it was not 11 of 13 states that left the existing union, but 11 of 33. The remaining 22 had the power to impose their will upon the 11. What could NC and RI do?
According to the Articles of Confederation, no change thereto had been legally made until the last state, RI, agreed to said change on 29 May 1790.
In any case, until 29 May 1790, RI must have had some status, and it could not possibly have been as a state of the newly formed Constitutional union. On 28 May 1790, what was the status of Rhode Island?
Unless Mr. Bledsoe is in error, I believe this claim is controverted by the following examination of the Hartford Convention and related events.
QUOTED FROM: Is Davis a traitor; or, Was secession a constitutional right previous to the war of 1861
By Albert Taylor Bledsoe (1809-1877)
263p
Innes & Company
1866
pp 193-201
All italics and capitalization as in original. Footnotes deleted. This is one unedited continuous quote. This is typed rather than cut and paste. Typos are mine.
QUOTE
The acquisition of Louisiana, which added a vast empire to the southern end of the Union, produced a profound dissatisfaction throughout Massachusetts and the other New England States; causing "the glorious Union" to wane, and the sovereignty of the states to wax, mightily in their eyes. "At an early period after the formation of the Constitution," as Mr. Buchanan truly says, "many influential individuals of New England became dissatisfied with the union between the Northern and Southern States, and wished to dissolve it." "This design," according to Mr. John Quincy Adams, "had been formed in the winter of 1803-4, immediately after and in consequence of the acquisition of Louisiana." The embargo and non-intercourse laws, which were designed to bring England to terms without the dire necessity of war, augmented the already great dissatisfaction of New England; because they affected her commercial interests, and thereby touched her in by the most sensitive portion of her frame. She cried aloud for war! She cried, down with all your embargo and non-intercourse laws, and up with the flag of armed resistance! Impatient at the slow movements of the south, she taunted her with cowardice, and courteously as well as elegantly declared, that the South could not be "kicked into a war with England." But she was mistaken; she did not fully comprehend the South; the South is, perhaps, too easily "kicked into a war." It is certain, that the South in the persons of her two young, ardent, enthusiastic, and chivalrous representatives, Henry Clay, of Kentucky, and John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, responded to the loud, vehement war-cry of New England. Their eloquence shook the nation. The spirit of armed resistance was roused; and the war with Great Britain proclaimed. But alas! this did not help the commerce of New England. The remedy proved worse than the evil. Her ravenous pockets, instead of being filled with gold and satisfied, became still more and more alive to the dreadful state of things, and, thereupon, she endeavored to "kick the south" out of the war with Great Britain. In this, the dark hours of her agony and distress, she suddenly discovered that war is, at best, a most unholy and unchristian thing; not be be entered on lightly, or without counting the cost. She also discovered, that after all, the number of her seamen, impressed by the tyranny of Great Britain, had been greatly exaggerated (by whom?); and that consequently the cause of quarrel was far too small to justify so unholy and so unchristian, that is to say, so unprofitable a war.
In the dark hour of her distress, the glorious rights of the States came out, and showered down their radiance on all New England, like the stars at night. The sovereignty of her own beloved Massachusetts, indeed, then totally eclipsed the full moon of the once "glorious Union;" just as completely as if Massachusetts had been "the whole earth." I speak from the record; from that secret, silent record of the Hartford convention, in which all the profound dissatisfaction of New England with the Union culminated; and into which her sons, in spite of all their prying curiosity, had no desire whatever to look. Mr. Webster, for example, in his great debate with Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, in 1830, solemnly declared that he had never read the proceedings of that famous Convention. No wonder!
"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."
"Events may prove," says the Journal of the Hartford Convention, January 4th, 1815, "that the causes of our calamities are deep and permanent. They may be found to proceed, not merely from blindness of prejudice, pride of opinion, violence of party spirit, or the confusion of the times; but they may be traced to implacable combinations of individuals, OR OF STATES, to monopolize power and office, and to trample without remorse upon the rights and interests of the commercial sections of the Union." Now, if we only substitute the term agricultural for commercial in the above passage; how admirably will it express the complaint of the South, which for long years of endurance, was treated with such imperial scorn and implacable contempt by the States of New England!
"Whenever it shall appear," continues the Journal, "that these causes are radical and permanent, a separation by equitable arrangement, will be preferable to AN ALLIANCE BY CONSTRAINT, AMONG NOMINAL FRIENDS, BUT REAL ENEMIES, INFLAMED BY MUTUAL HATRED AND JEALOUSIES, AND INVITING, BY INTESTINE DIVISIONS, CONTEMPT AND AGRESSIONS FROM ABROAD." Precisely thus, and not otherwise, reasoned the South in 1861; and asked for “a separation by equitable arrangement,” instead of “an alliance by contrast” with “nominal friends, but real enemies, inflamed by hatred and jealousies.” But the great boon was contemptuously refused; because the sentiments of New England had undergone a radical and total revolution. The reason is, that those were the sentiments of New England in the minority, and these the sentiments of New England in the majority. Holy indeed was her horror of “an alliance by constraint,” when she was the party in danger of being constrained; but no sooner had she acquired the power to constrain, than such an alliance appeared altogether pure and just in her unselfish eyes!
The Journal of this Convention has much to say about “the constitutional compact;” and hence, if it had only been read by Mr. Webster, he must have been familiar with this mode of expression, which so seriously offended him the resolution of Mr. Calhoun in 1833, and called forth his fine burst of eloquence in defence of the rights of that “noun substantive,” the CONSTITUTION. He must have discovered also, that in the opinion of Massachusetts in 1815, the rights of soverieign States are at least as important as those of any noun substantive in the language. For in the words of that Convention, the power of conscription is “not delegated to Congress by the Constitution, and the exercise of it would not be less dangerous to their liberties, THAN HOSTILE TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES.” ............ “It must be the duty of the State to watch over the rights reserved, as of the United States to exercise the powers which were delegated.
The Hartford Convention, towering in the strength of its State rights sentiments, continues thus: “That acts of congress in violation of the Constitution are absolutely void, is an undeniable position. It does not, however, consist with the respect from a CONFEDERATE STATE towards the General Government, to fly to open resistance upon every infraction of the constitution. The mode and the energy of the opposition should always conform to the nature of the violation, the intention of the authors, the extent of the evil inflicted, the determination manifested to persist in it, and the danger of delay. But in cases of deliberate, dangerous, and palpable infractions of the Constitution, AFFECTING THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE, and liberties of the people; it is not only the right, but the duty, of such State to interpose its authority for their protection, in the manner best calculated to secure that end. When emergencies occur which are either beyond the reach of judicial tribunals, or too pressing to admit of delay incident to their forms, STATES, WHICH HAVE NO COMMON UMPIRE, MUST BE THEIR OWN JUDGES, AND EXECUTE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.” Now, if possible, this comes more directly and plainly to the point,that the Resolutions of ‘98. It not only sets forth the great doctrine, it sometimes employs the very language of those Resolutions.
Having finished its work, and appointed commissioners to lay the complaints of New England before the Government of the United States, the Convention resolved, that “if these should fail,” it would be the duty of the New England States to hold another convention at Boston, on the 3d Thursday of June, with such powers and instructions as so momentous a crisis may require. No such Convention ever assembled at boston, or elsewhere; for, in the meantime, the great trouble had come to an end. How, or by what means? Mr. Webster, though he confesses ignorance as to the proceedings of the Hartford Convention, is nevertheless perfectly ready with an answer to this question. In his senatorial debate with Mr. Hayne, in 1830, he tells the world, that Massachusetts gave up all opposition as soon as the Supreme Court of the United States decided the laws of which she complained to be constitutional; thus showing her loyalty under the most severe and trying circumstances! This was, perhaps, a thrust at South Carolina; who, as Mr. Webster supposed, stood far apart from Massachusetts in the heresy, that in great and trying emergencies, “the States, who have no common umpire, are to be their own judges, and to execute their own decisions.” How little he knew the history of his own State! Hence, he could fondly imagine, that Massachusetts had always been willing and ready to bow to the Supreme Court as the common umpire between the States, and proudly pointed to her conduct in 1815, bending and groaning under the burden of laws, and yet loyally submitting to the high tribunal by whom it was fastened upon her shoulders! The truth is, as we have just seen, that Massachusetts had resolved to take that very emergency into her own hands; to be her own judge, and to execute her own decision. She cared indeed as little for the Supreme Court, in such an emergency, as she did for the other Courts of the Union; whose decisions had been repeatedly treated with contempt, and resisted with impunity, by her very loyal citizens during the great trouble of the war.
Why, then, did Massachusetts submit at last? Why did so great a change come over the spirit of her dream? The answer is a very simple one. It is told in the printed proceedings of the Hartford Convention. The story is certainly not so well adapted to the purposes of poetry, or of oratory, as the fine fiction invented by Mr. Webster; but it has, at least, the homely merit of truth. Harrison Gray Otis, T. H. Perkins, and W. Sullivan, the commissioners appointed by the Convention to lay the grievances of New England before the Government of the United States, reported that they had declined to do so, ”because they found, on their arrival at Washington, that peace had been concluded.” That was the secret of the submission of Massachusetts. The war with Great Britain was at an end; the embargo and non-intercourse would, of course, no longer vex her righteous soul; she could unfurl the wings of her commerce to every breeze, and bring in harvests of gold from every quarter of the globe. That was the secret of her great-hearted loyalty and submission. She no longer had any thing to submit to!
Sidney Smith complains of “exegesis,” that it spoils so many fine sermons; not allowing the preacher to ramble in his rhetoric, or to flourish at random, without regard to the real sense of his text. The same complaint may be urged against the simple truth of history. How many spendid orations, and grand soaring flights of rhetoric, will it not spoil for the people of New England! How many self-flattering and glorious illusions will it not dispel!
“That their object was,” said Mr. John Quincy Adams, “and had been for several years, a dissolution of the Union, and the establishment of a separate Confederation, he knew from unequivocal evidence, although not provable in a court of law; and that in case of a civil war, the aid of Great Britain to effect that purpose would be assuredly resorted to, as it would be indispensably necessary to their design.”
This design, says Mr. Adams, he had communicated to Mr. Jefferson, in 1809. Again, while President of the United States, Mr. Adams said: “That project, I repeat, had gone to the length of fixing upon a military leader for its execution; and although the circumstances of the times never admitted of its execution, nor even of its full development, I had no doubt in 1808 and 1809, and have no doubt at this time, that it is the key of all the great movements of the Federal Party in New England, [and that party was then in the ascendency in New England,] from that time forward till its final catastrophe in the Hartford Convention.”
“It is but fair to observe,” says Mr. Buchanan, “that these statements were denied by the parties implicated, but were still adhered to and again reaffirmed by Mr. Adams.” True, it is but fair that their denial should be known, and estimated at its true value. But who could expect any men to acknowledge their complicity in such a design? If, in the dark hours of their country’s trial, engaged in a war with the greatest nation upon earth, they could conveive the idea of deserting her standard, and even of invoking the aid and the arms of her powerful enemy to make their desertion good, is it to be supposed that, after the scheme had failed or blown over, they would have pleaded guilty to such a design? Nor is this all. What did they mean by appointing another Convention to be held at Boston? Did they mean nothing? Or if they had any honorable design, -- any design which need not shrink from the light of day, -- why has it never been avowed by them? The truth is, if any one shall carefully examine the proceedings of the Hartford Convention, and the previous history of New England which culminated in that Convention, he can hardly fail to perceive, that the positive testimony of John Quincy Adams, is most powerfully corroborated by circumstances. The conclusion of Mr. Buchanan appears perfectly true; “that this body [the Hartford Convention] manifested their purpose to dissolve the Union, should Congress refuse to redress the grievances of which they complained.”
Four years before the date of the Hartford Convention, Mr. Josiah Quincy, an influential member of Congress from Massachusetts, publicly declared the right of secession. The extract from his speech on the 14th january, 1811 is hackneyed; but it is, nevertheless, significant of what was then passing in the mind of Massachusetts. It is also exceedingly significant; because it was uttered in opposition to the admission of Louisiana into the Union as a State. “If this bill passes,” said he, “it is my deliberate opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union; that it will free the States from their moral obligation and, as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, definitely to prepare for separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must.” Nay, upon the purchase of Louisiana in 1803, the Legislature of Massachusetts passed the following resolution: “Resolved, That the annexation of Louisiana to the Union, transcends the Constitutional power of the Government of the United States. It formed a new Confederacy to which the States united by the former compact, are not bound to adhere.”
CLOSE QUOTE
With all due respect, whether one agrees with the notion or not, it cannot be reasonably maintained that the notion did not even occur to anyone until the 1830s. Whether rightly or wrongly espoused, the historical documents are littered with statements regarding said notion.
You have yet to answer, and apparently find it impossible to answer, my simple question.
If Rhode Island was part of the new Constitutional union, was it dragged in against its will without ratification?
If it remained part of the Articles of Confederation union, then both unions must have existed at the same time.
If it was not part of any union, but entirely independent, how had it lost membership in the Confederated union?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.